BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion

Subject: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:14 PM

Today, the Supreme court issued what both sides are calling "the most significant ruling on abortion since Roe v. Wade"

It upholds a ban on 'partial-birth abortions' without making any exception for the health of the mother.

The decision was 5-4, with the expected jurists on each side.

...and so it begins....

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: pdq
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:29 PM

"without making any exception for the health of the mother"

As far as I can tell, the standard was raised to "threat to the life of the woman"

BTW, your use of the word mother seems a bit premature, does it not?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:30 PM

"The decision enforces the law that prohibits the procedure of partially extracting a fetus 20 weeks or older intact from a woman's uterus and then crushing or cutting its skull before it is fully delivered."

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:40 PM

Seems reasonable to me. Surely the mother's life won't be too at stake after 20 weeks?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:08 PM

As I remember, the original decision in Roe v. Wade only applied to the first trimester. Nothing was said about anything after that.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:36 PM

True true

but new words have been added... they are "unfettered choice"

A physician may not have unfettered choice!

"Unfettered choice" removes a certain degree of authourity by a physician. Now the courts will be able to fill the void and choose a proper medical determination of their own. A doctors decision is now legally diminished.

In other words the court has set itself up to fetter away and second guess doctors.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:13 PM

" A doctors decision is now legally diminished."

That is precisely the case....which is cause for rejoicing by one side and alarm by the other side. It is hard to predict exactly what will happen next, but the 'rejoicing' side is pushing for even MORE constraints.

Their goal seems to be to remove the doctor's decision from 'most' decisions and substitute their 'moral' view......and now they think they have the votes to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:33 PM

An excellent essay from the perspective of a woman who had a second trimester abortion: "Why I Chose Abortion".

I am left wondering now what the exact text of the Act is, now that the term "partial birth abortion" has been invented -- what does it actually cover? How broadly will that ruling be interpreted?

~ Becky in Tucson
seriously bummed out about it, is my response, in case that's not clear

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:34 PM

Well, that was hard -- here's the text of Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:38 PM

Although an introductory paragraph is fairly graphic and specific, the following text is the formal definition, which seems like it could be more broadly interpreted. See the essay that I linked above.

CHAPTER 74 -- PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
"Sec.
"1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       (a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.

       (b) As used in this section --

(1) the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which --

                   (A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that theperson knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

                   (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:53 PM

OK, I stand very corrected after reading Desert Dancer/Becky's link. See? It IS possible to change someone's mind.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bert
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:56 PM

Oh dear!

An abortion is a tragedy which ever way you look at it. What a terrible decision for a mother to have to make.

There are three women that I love dearly who have had abortions for different reasons. Each one of them went through agonies trying to finalise the decison. Each one of them is a beautiful caring woman.

I can't believe that any of them made the wrong decision.

I CAN believe that the decision was their's and their's alone.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:24 AM

Not just in the East you find mad mullahs.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 05:45 AM

It goes beyond abortion.   I think the key here and what we willl have to do in the future, as it now seems, is to issue firearms to make sure every baby can fend off attacks of the others.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 07:14 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-scotus19apr19,1,3100072.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-frontpage&

Ginsburg, the court's only woman, called Wednesday's decision "alarming."

It "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court," she said.

She said this dispute was about how, not whether, abortions would be performed during the second trimester. Despite Kennedy's talk of "promoting fetal life," the ban on the procedure "targets only a method of abortion," she said. "The woman may abort the fetus, so long as her doctor uses another method, one her doctor judges less safe for her."

She also called the decision demeaning to women. It "pretends" to protect them "by denying them any choice in the matter," she said.

Bad decision, bad for women, bad for doctors. The fact that the health of the mother (only her life) is no longer a defensible reason for choosing a medical procedure is chilling. A doctor who decides her life is in danger may use the procedure, but now faces after-the-fact legal difficulties in defending the decision.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:02 AM

And it some dizzy idiot like Fred Thompson gets elected in 2008, what will happen?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:42 AM

Becky, thanks for the links. I found the following esp. interesting from the article (my emphasis):

Once the president signed the act -- the first federal ban on any abortion procedure in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and the first ban on a surgical technique in the history of this country --

But the language of the law was less clear. Essentially, legislators invented a previously nonexistent medical term -- "partial-birth abortion" -- and then banned it. By giving it a purposely vague definition, the term could feasibly apply to all abortions after the first trimester, including my own.

Legislators also made no mention of fetal viability (the point at which a fetus can live independently of its mother for an extended period of time) or gestational age. There were no exceptions for a fetus with severe birth defects incompatible with life (many of which cannot be detected until well into the second trimester). Nor for a mother who would be forced to have, for example, a kidney transplant or hysterectomy if she continued with the pregnancy.

I've said it before and I still feel this way, no man has a right to decide what a woman will do with her body and that includes the men in our government.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: pdq
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:14 PM

I you want the facts,

                  please read this

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM

those are 'some' facts...not ALL the facts.....nicely arranged and presented by an avowed opponent of all abortion.

I would not have expected anything else from a site entitled "priestsforlife"
...obviously, opinions can differ about relevance and interpretation, and that's the point.

There 'could' be a simple rule...If YOU don't believe in abortions, don't have one, but don't presume to decide for all others in all situations.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM

pdq, I can assure you that a woman dying of septicemia, or haemmoraging to death, is every bit as gruesome as those pictures, and may very well be one result of this new ban. Go read some of the testimonies of women whose lives were in the balance except for this procedure.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: pdq
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:38 PM

"Go read some of the testimonies of women whose lives were in the balance except for this procedure.

That is precisely why there is an exemption provided for "lives in the balance".

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:48 PM

To play the devil's advocate, the introductory sections of the bill make it clear that the bill constrains only a particular kind of procedure because it so close, technically to th ekilling of a born child. The routine induces vaginal birth and interrupts it with insertion of a sharp object into the brain case of the foetus just before it is delivered. I can understand that the difference between such a foetus and a delivered baby seems so marginal as to be a quibble.

The document also actually reaffirms the right to abortion defined by Roe v. Wade.

The moral whirlwind surrounding these issues has what I think is an interesting boundary condition: no-one who defends abortion would defend the right to terminate the life of a born child. Technically, doing so is an act of murder. The instant of parturition grants the child the Consittutional rights of personhood. (Parents sometimes take a while to catch up with this recognition, but that's understandable!) :)

I am not a medical expert, but if you have a viable if premature foetus on the border of being born, is there medical risk to the mother in putting it in an incubator rather than terminating it? AFAIK the threat to individual health is the continuation of the pregnancy, not the survival of the foetus into babyhood.

All this said, I am concerned about the right of the Federal government to pre-empt the choices of both mother and medical professional under any circumstances. I think it's a thorny and convoluted issue, though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:11 PM

Its a downhill slope.      watch Jesus Camp



Just like when you remove only a little part of habeous corpus,
things like rendition, torture and secret tribunals start slipping downhill like glassy ice sliding down a teflon mountain covered with WD-40

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:36 PM

Amos, often, where this extreme procedure is used in the third trimester, it is not dealing with a viable baby, but one which might possibly live minutes or days. Often it was a desired pregnancy where something has gone terribly wrong. Now that this procedure is banned, doctors will use the other procedure, a version of dilation and currettage, which is not banned, as far as I can tell, essentially reaching into the uterus multiple times with instruments to remove the fetus piecemeal, thus putting the mother more at risk because of the invasiveness and danger of cutting the mother's tissue.

"Pro-lifers" often seem oblivious to the physical realities of pregnancy. They read 'fetus', they think 'adorable baby', but not every pregnancy is successful, terrible things can happen, non-survivable deformities, a ten pound fetus dead in the womb, killer infections. Doctors in these cases must make choices based on their education and experience. Now, one choice is gone, and they must be feeling very cautious about other procedures that closely resemble it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:42 PM

So the burden has been placed on the doctor to remove the foetus entire and try to resuscitate it even where doing so is technically futile?   I don't see where the removal part is forbidden -- just the near-removal and kill version. Or am I missing something about this bill?

A

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Ref
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:11 PM

Let's see. Picture President Gore nominating Roberts, Alito, or anyone remotely like them to the Supreme Court? Thanks AGAIN, Ralph!

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: kendall
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 08:10 AM

Clearly it's the camel's nose under the tent.

Ringslinger, why do you call Thompson a "dizzy idiot"?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:55 AM

"Ringslinger, why do you call Thompson a "dizzy idiot"?"

          Sorry. I guess he just reminds me of Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: kendall
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:32 AM

Same political philosophy, but, Reagan struck me as vacuous, shallow, lying two bit second rate actor. If it comes down to Hillary or Thompson, no contest. I'd rather have a republican in the White House than a foul mouth witch.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:53 AM

trade the word life for health and the word woman for mother and everythings OK.

The life of the woman is now more of a court decision than a doctor's decision. Perhaps depending on what value the court places on the life of the "mother" they will rule for the child's lfe to come first.

After all the child might be a BOY!

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:38 PM

"If it comes down to Hillary or Thompson,"

       It doesn't seem like we get much of a choice anymore.

          Where did the politicians and the court get a license to practice medicine in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:44 PM

I don't care what a partial birth abortion is or what it entails. Meaningless chatter really. The question is, if the mother's life is in danger by delivering a baby such that the baby can be delivered but the mother will die or the mother can be saved but the baby will die, who gets to make that choice?

I say the parents first off. It should be something they've already discussed so the decision should be settled already. If neither is capable of making the choice for some reason, it should be up to the doctor and he should base his decision on which has a better chance to survive--mother or infant.

It should not be up to a court at all. It should never reach a court. It should never have to go that far. It's a personal matter between the couple and their doctor. The baby doesn't get a vote--sorry--and neither should anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 02:03 PM

282RA, I hope it would be a rare case where the fetus life took precedence over the mother's. The couple's decision? I've known men who think so little of their wives that they would want a male heir saved instead of the wife, and an exhausted, likely drugged and confused woman is in no shape to make any such decision regarding her own life. The woman's life must always take precedence above all else. The only circumstance I can think of where a living mother might be put at risk to save her infant would be the case of a permanently braindead woman who has no chance of recovery anyway. I believe there was a case like this in the past five years.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:01 PM

Wouldn't it actually be less dangerous to the mother in these cases to go through with the birth without messing with procecure, and then to kill the baby?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: pdq
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:20 PM

Great question. Answer is yes, but then you would have to call it infanticide. Abortion fans are just playing word games.

Seems that people can claim that the child was not really born since a portion of it's body is still in the birth canal when it is killed.

The term 'partial birth abortion' allows a healthy baby of 8 1/2 months to be killed without calling the act 'infanticide', but that's what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:34 PM

I am willing to make one prediction. Within a few months, at most, some physician will make an honest, competent decision that this procedure is essential for the safety of a woman's life, and will then be dragged into court to defend his action because someone with less medical competence disagrees.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:35 PM

I think that is an extreme -- even exagerrated -- description.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: kendall
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 07:36 AM

How often is this "partial birth abortion" performed? Seems to me that the very phrase is inflammatory.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 10:41 AM

The phrase is inflammatory. That's not really what it's called. The right-wing crazies call it that to get just the reaction you describe. And as I understand it, it's very rare.

                It has a clinical name that I can't remember, which is probably why so many people call it PBA.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 07:06 PM

It is sometimes called late-term abortion. (BUT, what late-term means is up in the air. For some it's 13-16 weeks and it goes as far as the third trimester at 27 weeks

"A total of 103,768 abortions were performed in 2003 [in Canada]"

The number of late-term abortions was 9.5% or 9,859. That figure is not insignificant. If the general 10-1 ratio holds true (as so often it does with the US and Canada), then there were approximately 98,590 late-term abortions in the US. Folks, that is one helluva lotta lives.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:14 PM

Here are some research numbers from an article at NPR:

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

Some interesting comments from an article by the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women:

ccording to Kennedy, failing to reverse the unanimous rulings of three lower federal courts, all finding the abortion ban unconstitutional, would risk repudiating "that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."

The decision thus has grave implications for all pregnant women, not only those seeking to end pregnancies. If the government can choose to advance fetal interests over the pregnant woman's health in the context of abortion, why can't so-called "fetal rights" prevail in the context of birth?

In fact, this argument is already being used to justify court-ordered Cesarean sections in cases where physicians believe that a c-section will prove more beneficial to the fetus (this despite the fact that c-sections constitute major surgery and pose increased health risks to the pregnant woman and in some cases the fetus as well). True, most courts so far rule that such interventions unconstitutionally strip women of their civil and human rights, including bodily integrity, informed medical decision-making, liberty, and, in one case, life itself. In that case, later reversed by an appellate court, both the woman and her baby died after a forced c-section ordered to protect fetal life.

But at least one federal court has said that sending police to a woman's home, taking her into custody while in active labor and near delivery, strapping her legs together and her body down to transport her against her will to a hospital, and then forcing her, without access to counsel or court review to undergo major surgery constituted no violation of her civil rights at all. The rationale? If the state can limit women's access to abortions after viability, it can subject her to the lesser state intrusion of insisting on one method of delivery over another.

AND:


Yesterday President Bush said, "The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law."

And yet the Bush administration is actively supporting policies to limit poor children's access to state child health insurance programs. In short, the Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- and Bush's professed support for it -- reinforces the sense, once again, that only the unborn deserve protection in this country. Not by ensuring universal health care, paid maternity leave, or an end to workplace pregnancy discrimination -- only by restricting pregnant women's access to health care.

Anyway, as I said before, men have no business legislating women's bodies AND a body of mostly men, i.e. Congress, has fuckall right to take ANY medical decisions out of the hands of doctors and their patients.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:21 PM

Stats on abortion world-wide and in the USA from 1997.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 12:09 AM

My Late Term Abortion

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 12:35 AM

Those 1997 numbers were before the shrub signed the anti-D&X law in 2003. Way out of date.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 12:37 AM

Yeah. And . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 01:01 AM

More up-to-date stats are HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:56 AM

I don't always agree with you Kat, but may I on this one?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 07:25 PM

Is choice actually the right word to use when it's conditioned by economic pressures? As reflected in those stats kat linked to there.

It has struck me for a long time that it would be much more sensible if sincere people on both sides in this argument could focus their attention on ways of removing the pressures that push many women into having abortion when they would sooner give birth.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:20 PM

I believe that the current Supreme Court is very apt to cast enough out-of-step decisions over the next 2 years to insure that the Republicans will be swept from office for a very long time...

Not that I like the alternative much but....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 10:56 PM

"It has struck me for a long time that it would be much more sensible if sincere people on both sides in this argument could focus their attention on ways of removing the pressures that push many women into having abortion when they would sooner give birth."

It struck me for a long time that it would be more sensible yet if couples would use birth control effectively and not have an unwanted pregnancy to begin with.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:02 AM

No contradiction between those two sentences - I get the sense that maybe Peace thinks there is.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 10:09 AM

No, I don't. I think that continuing abortions without education will allow the numbers to remain much as they are. Without education fuck all will change.

There are legitimate reasons for abortion. However, just because some idiot 'forgot' to use a condom or take a pill should not be one of those reasons. I particularly dislike the people (and this means couples) who decide that a child will be inconvenient. Gee, we won't be able to get the second car!

I am not in favour of killing kids, either in the womb or on the battle fields of Iraq. And I don't care who does or doesn't like my position on this. So, McG of H, you got it wrong. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Grab
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:07 AM

Wouldn't it actually be less dangerous to the mother in these cases to go through with the birth without messing with procecure, and then to kill the baby?

Great question. Answer is yes, but then you would have to call it infanticide. Abortion fans are just playing word games.

Seems that people are missing the point here. There are only two reasons for which a doctor is allowed to do this: firstly if the life of the mother is in danger; and secondly in the case of major trauma or malformation of the foetus. This is *not* an alternative to birth control, and has *no* relevance to "unwanted" births.

For the first possibility, I hope it's blindingly obvious why it's needed - the mother will die otherwise, and the foetus's chances of survival are very low. Economic pressures simply are not present here, nor word games either.

For the second possibility, it's a factor of the *potential* human being's life. A foetus is *not* a human being, only a *potential* human being after sufficient development to be able to survive outside the womb. In addition, the doctors and parents must consider quality of life if the foetus is carried to term, hence the woman in Kat's link deciding for a late-term abortion because of hydrocephaly. If the child, when born, will be incapable of independent movement, incapable of conscious though and/or in constant intolerable pain forever, the parents will have to consider whether *they* think carrying the foetus to term is in its best interests - in other words, whether killing it is being kinder to it. Yes, there is also the question of whether they think they could look after such a child for the rest of its life, but the economic impact of this is basically irrelevant compared to everything else. The question is "could I look after this child for the rest of my life?", not "could I afford to look after this child for the rest of my life?".

Yes, this does have a crossover with euthanasia. The common question is: if you are responsible for an animal's care, and that animal is suffering intolerably with no possibility of improvement, you would have it put down painlessly; so why is the same option not open for humans? If a litter of puppies included one with no central nervous system such that it could never think or even breathe on its own, would you insist on life support for it for 20 years until it died of old age?

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 12:06 PM

Did anyone happen to hear the interview with Bill Clinton on The Larry King show last night?
Clinton explained very carefully and clearly how this had come up when he was president, and how, as Kendall asks and Rigenslinger confirms, the phrase and descriptions have been used in an inflammitory way to affect opinion.

Clinton vetoed a bill trying to limit the procedure, and standing with him at the time were a couple of conservatives who had NEEDED the procedure because of conditions such as hydrocephaly in the baby. He made it clear that he did not LIKE abortion, but he refused to be part of a law which put moral & religious concerns above personal and medical ones.

Would that all the righteous folks trying to control the lives of others would do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 02:11 PM

No kidding, Bill, agreed!

Graham, thanks for putting it so well.

Richard, of course!

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM

What kind of being is a human foetus if not a human being? A small and not fully developed human being, but human, and "a being" by virtue of existing.

It is possible to argue that in certain circumstances it is right to kill human beings, but that is no reason to say that they are not human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:28 PM

McGrath, do you eat eggs?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:43 PM

Kevin...we are tap dancing among words here. In some thinking the words 'a human being' makes no sense unless the 'foetus' is capable of living on its own.....while others 'believe' that a 4 celled organism is 'human': that somehow a 'soul' enters it at conception.

No matter what one's subjective definition, the issue is always 'who has the authority to decide between alternatives when there are problems?'
I see clear arguments from various viewpoints, but I will NEVER see why a legislative body OR a court should have the authority to decide ahead of time what medical decisions should be made.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM

And if the eggs are fertilised, do you regard them as chicken?

It is, of course, the magic man stuff which instantly makes our eggs murderable. Before that, our shedding them monthly is often a subject of mirth, fear or insult. It is estimated (and believe me, I have researched this thoroughly) that between 45% and 60% of fertilised human eggs, that is, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, are naturally aborted, or miscarried, often before the woman knows she is pregnant.

No one has ever made a clear case for the moment at which a fetus can be considered an individual with the same rights as a born individual. There are some good attempts being made to determine at what developmental point a fetus can reasonably be expected to feel pain as an individual, and I would be on board with considering that a point at which abortion should cease to be an elective procedure, but remain an option with regard to the mother's well being.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:52 PM

"It is, of course, the magic man stuff which instantly makes our eggs murderable. "

Nice bit of sexism there. But then that's not the issue, is it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 05:24 PM

Yes, kat, I eat eggs, and I eat chickens. If I thought it wrong to eat chickens I'd probably think it wrong to eat chicken eggs. We don't use the term "chicken beings", but if we did I'd assume it would include chickens at all stages of their existence.
....................................

Whether abortion is legal or not it will always take place. Seeking to erecting legal barriers against it is really a pretty futile idea. But there should be a point of agreement between those who call themselves "pro-choice" and those who call themselves "pro-life", and that should be a determination to end a situation where many pregnant women feel compelled to opt for abortion against their will because of economic and social pressures.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 05:33 PM

The issue is not one of comparing chickens and eggs to humans and eggs. An egg is just an egg. A sperm cell is just a sperm cell (and yes it's very unfortunate they come from men). When they do chance to meet they together create life. There is no legal definition in Canada as to when a zygote becomes a legal entity. That has been avoided by the courts as well as the medical community. We more and more live in a disposable society where nothing except self-gratification means a damned thing. So, to hell with human rights, regardless of the age of the human. The reality is that without help, no one posting here would have made it past one week old (on the outside). Maybe there IS something admirable about the mammal part of the animal kingdom. Most creatures will fight for their young. Here, we fight for ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 05:57 PM

Pedantic note: the term egg means something different when we are talking about birds and mammals. A chicken egg is more equivalent to a kind of disposable womb, providing the environment within which a fertilised chicken embryo grows and develops.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 07:00 PM

to hell with human rights

That's exactly the attitude the anti-choice people use when it comes to a woman's right to govern her own body. They don't give a damn about her human rights.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 07:06 PM

The woman generally had the right along with her other half--whether permanennt or temporary--of not getting pregnant. Your stats posted about indicate that a large percent of the pregnancies are unwanted. So, DON'T get pregnant. It's not like in North America there are no ways not to. This issue--which you tend to say is just a woman's issue is a societal issue. One that has to do with complete disregard for anything and anyone but but the 'self'.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Grab
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 08:49 PM

What kind of being is a human foetus if not a human being? A small and not fully developed human being, but human, and "a being" by virtue of existing.

First off, forget religion. If we're talking souls here, that's a faith-based argument and as such is not capable of discussion. If that's an objection, I'm not going to start, because it'll go nowhere.

The foetus is a *potential* human being. Is it human? Well it's made from human cells, but so are all my individual organs, and no-one complains about operations to remove a kidney. Does it exist? Yes, but so does my liver. More importantly though, my liver isn't capable of perception itself, and until my liver shows signs of independent perception (such as shouting "don't drink any more beer, you pisshead!" ;-) it's a part of me. Hence a foetus is simply a part of a woman's body until it is capable of perception.

It's only possible to do harm to something which can feel that harm. For that reason, most of us would object to animal testing without anaesthetic, or cosmetics testing like the soap-in-bunnies'-eyes kind of thing, but very few of us would object to selective breeding of amoebas or even fruit flies by killing off the remainder. That's where the general ban on abortion after the first trimester comes in - after that point, the foetus has been shown to avoid discomfort. Note that it's not possible to say it feels pain, because no-one can tell what a foetus feels, but erring on the side of caution is OK. Before that point, the foetus is a clump of cells, possibly in some rough form but incapable of perception. If it's not capable of perception, it's not capable of being harmed, whatever happens to it. But once it can avoid discomfort, the law says that it gets the benfit of the doubt, which is perfectly sensible.

Someone's probably going to say that denial of potential forms harm. I don't believe it does, unless the subject has the ability to perceive that harm before or after, or unless the denial of the subject's potential causes harm to others. It's also a denial of potential which is built into human existence, since most foetuses are miscarried.

That's abortion in general. Then there's the late-term abortion problem, which is something else again.

If the mother's going to die before the foetus can be viable out of the womb, then the foetus is going to die anyway. "Do no harm" then becomes "do as little harm as possible" - in other words, do you want one actual human and one potential human dying, or just one potential human? Also consider that the method of death for the foetus is chosen to be as quick and painless as possible, namely instant braindeath, where the alternative is basically death by suffocation. If there was a way of preserving the foetus outside the womb then killing it would surely be wrong, but with our current medical knowledge that isn't possible, so we have to choose the least worst option.

Then there's foetal injury or deformity. This is way open to debate, but for myself, I'll go by my line above - "incapable of independent movement, incapable of conscious thought and/or in constant intolerable pain forever". This doesn't provide justification for termination of foetuses with Downs Syndrome, mental handicap or physical disabilities such as malformed limbs. But hydrocephaly or a whole bunch of other major woes (mostly thankfully rare) have to be considered. And again, as with euthanasia, I'd say that if you consider a human being to be at least equally deserving of relief from suffering as an animal, you shouldn't subject that human being to conditions of life that you wouldn't tolerate for an animal. Yes, this requires a value judgement, but if we can trust vets to make that call on a daily basis, I think we can damn sure put some trust in multiple doctors and parents to come to a rational decision between them.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Ref
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 10:38 PM

Don't get pregnant? jeebus, the same group that wants to deprive women of control over their own bodies wants to deprive all of us of birth control. This is all about the invisible sky spirit. The truth is that you have to let the careless person, or callous person, have her abortion in order to protect the right of the woman who medically needs it to have one. Any other scheme is just cover for the antis, with "eligibility" being litigated until the subject passes the deadline.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:04 PM

Exactly, Ref. It's the mantra of the abstinence brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:14 AM

Abortion should not be perceived as a form of birth control. If it is, you have a lazy, sloppy, fucked up view of things.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:17 AM

"Exactly, Ref. It's the mantra of the abstinence brigade."

That is sophistry. I have said--and I'll say again--there is a need for abortion in some circumstances. There is also obviously a great need for contraception education. There is no need, in the name of what you call 'women's rights', for abortion to be a form of birth control.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 04:12 AM

Never said it should be a form of birth control and never will. What is fucked up is some guy deciding what a woman can do with her body, esp. in a medical setting. The abstinence brigade would have women carry all pregnancies to term and cause more women to become pregnant through lack of pregnancy prevention education and/or contraceptive supplies.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 08:02 AM

"It is, of course, the magic man stuff which instantly makes our eggs murderable. " - Bee

"Nice bit of sexism there. But then that's not the issue, is it. " - Peace

Yes it is, a nice bit of sexism. Pardon me for allowing frustration at the fact that it is overwhelmingly a group of men who decide how womens' reproduction will be controlled to cause me to react waspishly.

The vast majority of women do not 'use abortion as a method of birth control'. Abortion is at best an uncomfortable and often painful process. Any woman who's had a D&C (there are reasons besides abortion for this procedure) will agree that it sucks big time. Abortion is still a matter of jumping through hoops to obtain, and yet women do obtain them in fairly large numbers.

So why is it that they haven't 'clued in' to using birth control? Birth control choices are: hormonal pills/implants, IUDs, condoms, charting cycles, sterilization.

Hormonal pills/implants: These work quite well for many women, but for a goodly number of women, they have side effects including reduction of libido, depression, weight gain, and possibly future susceptibility to breast cancer. They also are an ongoing expense, and missing even one or two can lead to pregnancy.

IUDs: These work well for some women, but have been known to fail, can cause physical harm (get loose and perforate the uterus wall, for one), and must be removed and replaced every two to five years in what, trust me, can be a very painful procedure. They also must be purchased - last one I bought cost over $40.

Condoms: Work well, have been known to fail, can cause allergic responses, and some men still refuse to use them. Must be purchased.

Charting cycles: Can work, if you are dedicated, organised, and have a partner on side. Fails frequently, since cycles can vary for a multitude of reasons.

Sterilization: A great solution, if you don't want any, or any more, children.

Yes, everybody should be educated about birth control, and should use it, but there is a percentage of people who will not or cannot use it because of ignorance, money issues, partner issues, health issues, and of course there is the varying failure rate for all the options (including sterilization, which isn't always as perfectly done as it should be).

IOW, birth control is not perfect, does not always work, often includes unwanted effects, and is still overwhelmingly about the woman. And when it fails, she is faced with having a child or an abortion, which she must try to hide because it is still socially a frowned upon procedure, and some people will also accuse her of being stupid about birth control.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:03 AM

I don't think it's only the female who can be accused of stupidity in that regard. However, assuming the usual pairing is by mutual consent, then both people have a responsibility to address the necessity of birth control--more specifically, the prevention of pregnancy, assuming neither want progeny. As to women deciding what they'll do with their bodies, I agree. And I think that decision should occur before sex, not just after. There are gangs of reasons birth control doesn't work. But that posits the presumption that most unwanted pregnancies are the result of failed contraceptive measures. I don't buy that. Most unwanted pregnancies are the result of not giving a damn about the possible consequences of a sexual union. As to the percentage of people who won't be educated despite the best efforts of 'society', there are those too. That said, I would like to see a good education about pregnancy prevention, and if the has to include other options to the penis in the vagina, then it should.

The argument that women are the only ones who are told what to do with their bodies is bullshit--although that is not the way it was stated, just the way it was implied. Men too have been told what to do with theirs for centuries. Few of us go to war willingly. We are NONE of us in control of our machines.

As to abortion on demand, which is basically what it is in Canada, I do indeed have a right to a say. Maybe not as a man, but certainly as a tax payer. I'd prefer to see the money in education as opposed to the operating room.

With that, I'm outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Grab
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:48 AM

Re the charts, the NewScientist "Feedback" page last week quoted the obit of some bloke who invented a "natural" cycle-based system - "survived by his wife and eight of his nine children". :-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:55 AM

"What do you call people who practise the rhythm method?"





Parents.


(That was around when I was ten. Nice to see the old 'joke' has been updated and embellished.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:16 PM

This ruling shows how much the abortion issue has become a matter of politics excluding the interests of the woman or her family. Where do these be-robed white men (and Uncle Tom) get off claiming to know anything about pregnancy? It's absurd.

Worse it's religiously and politically motivated (IE: to win votes from neo-cons).

It just is another case of persecution by the Catholic church.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 04:01 PM

"It just is another case of persecution by the Catholic church"


          I don't think it's just the Catholic Church. But you're right it doesn't pay to people who are addicted to superstition in positions of authority.